Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

irateplatypus · 09-27-2004, 07:48 AM

good post jb.

though bush doctrine may not stop proliferation... i'm not sure that we have found an effective way to curb it at all. clinton seemed to be more in favor of diplomatic channels, yet there is a clear failure on his part to sate NK's desire for a nuke. too often i think "diplomatic efforts" translates into concessions. not always, but certainly often. if we start giving nations like iran and NK economic breaks and/or relieve pressure in exchange for a supposed reduction in nuclear activities... then we are only encouraging other nations to start their own programs so they can receive he same treatment.

i think a hard-line (and perhaps military) response is the only real workable solution. if we can assure any country that develops nukes that they are going to get harsh economic and military treatment from the U.S. that will do more than anything else to curb development. i think we've either got to find a standard and put our national credibility on the line to stick to it, or we've got to accept that the Irans and the NKs of the world will get nukes. anything in between seems to be folly.

edit: within the context of the discussion cthulu's post can very well be interpreted to mean what some of the other poster's understood it to mean. i don't mean to insult you, but comments like those (or how we understood them originally) are quite commonplace... i've seen more juvenile things posted about bush before. i really think you're taking it too hard. either way, we're all clear on what you mean now... so let's move on.

09-27-2004, 07:48 AM	#17 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	good post jb. though bush doctrine may not stop proliferation... i'm not sure that we have found an effective way to curb it at all. clinton seemed to be more in favor of diplomatic channels, yet there is a clear failure on his part to sate NK's desire for a nuke. too often i think "diplomatic efforts" translates into concessions. not always, but certainly often. if we start giving nations like iran and NK economic breaks and/or relieve pressure in exchange for a supposed reduction in nuclear activities... then we are only encouraging other nations to start their own programs so they can receive he same treatment. i think a hard-line (and perhaps military) response is the only real workable solution. if we can assure any country that develops nukes that they are going to get harsh economic and military treatment from the U.S. that will do more than anything else to curb development. i think we've either got to find a standard and put our national credibility on the line to stick to it, or we've got to accept that the Irans and the NKs of the world will get nukes. anything in between seems to be folly. edit: within the context of the discussion cthulu's post can very well be interpreted to mean what some of the other poster's understood it to mean. i don't mean to insult you, but comments like those (or how we understood them originally) are quite commonplace... i've seen more juvenile things posted about bush before. i really think you're taking it too hard. either way, we're all clear on what you mean now... so let's move on. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 09-27-2004 at 07:54 AM..